Reply to Response: I never played these games, but I was 11 when they came out, so therefore an expert on everything.

Need to form a group? Huge inconvenience. Probably one of the biggest hinderances of the genre.

Yes, the genre was really hindered as it exploded 1000 fold in popularity with the addition of group and raid-centric games.

EQ had forced dependency.

MMOs as a whole got really popular.

Forming a group therefore wasn't a hindrance to popularity.

That's not only a ridiculous leap of logic but for the past ten years has proven historically false. The most notable example is the reduction in raid size from EQ 'golden age' to present making content more accessible. Hell, even during those early years (2003 and earlier), most of the MMOs didn't require grouping.

Group or crawl

EQ

DAoC

Solo and Group content

Furcadia

Tibia

Kesmia

Graal

Ultima Online

Asheron's Call

There

Planet Entropia

Runescape

EVE Online

Second Life

Puzzle Pirates

Neocron

Anarchy Online

The EQers seem to think that EQ defined the way MMOs were at the time. Your 'golden age' encompassed a lot more than just the masochistic monotony of EQ, but acknowledging that would shatter your illusions of The Way It Was.

There are two reasons that MMORPG's are as popular as they are today. The first is Everquest, and the second is World of Warcraft. I didn't play all of those games you mentioned, but Ultima Online sure as hell had forced grouping...

I stopped there. I doubt anything after that would be any less ridiculous.

Yeah I stop posting after I saw that. There are no words to describe my disbelief in that statement. It's no wonder devs are continuing to make these so call group oriented pigeon-holed endgames. Forcing descent mmo gamers to deal with players who don't even understand what grouping means in the first place. They seem to think the only time to group with people is when a game deems it necessary to do so. Oh how wrong they are...

"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Burntvet

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by grimfall

There are two reasons that MMORPG's are as popular as they are today. The first is Everquest, and the second is World of Warcraft. I didn't play all of those games you mentioned, but Ultima Online sure as hell had forced grouping...

I stopped there. I doubt anything after that would be any less ridiculous.

I also did not see original SWG on that list, where player interdependency and group play were at the core of the game. And crafting even more so.

The first incarnation of SWG had the most need for other people, and by population metrics, was the version people enjoyed most.

Early SWG is a great example of mechanics that promote collaboration vs the current state of necessary contrived groups to achieve a goal. In SWG there were reasons to work together. You did not need to be tethered to 5 other people in order to achieve an objective. The group activity was a tier beyond the individual activities, allowing people to work either together or solo to accomplish group goals.

The biggest advantage to that is it allows people to contribute within their comfort levels of interaction and socializing. It allows people to contribute within their personal time constraints and not mandatory raid hours or some other conflicting schedule.

Yup.

Good example: In order to found a guild in original SWG, you needed a guildhall (that was where the guild management terminal was found). When the game first came out, you had to literally hand sample the ore and other materials, because there were no harvesters yet, to make all the components and the guildhall itself.

Well, because there was no other way to do it, we had a group of 30+ standing around and running around handsampling everything until we were able to build a guildhall and get guild functionality. And it took about a week of collective effort to get that stuff together, and learn along the way what we were doing wrong, plus at the very beginning the materials were all respawning every day, and we could not figure out why the were different each day (they fixed that bug in the second week).

At the end though, everyone was excited to join the guild and that all that collective effort allowed that to happen. And it got people investing in the game from the beginning.

Report this post

Need to form a group? Huge inconvenience. Probably one of the biggest hinderances of the genre.

Buffing. Stupid mechanic, imo. Needlessly creates dependencies. Long term buffs should be permanent (meaning no long term buffs) and buffs more tactical in general. All removable by offensive abilites ofcourse.

See number 1.

Meaningful is entirely subjective. I don't find any meaning in fighting over a virtual castle. It is pointless. I'd much rather play for ladder rankings and tournaments.

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Report this post

Need to form a group? Huge inconvenience. Probably one of the biggest hinderances of the genre.

Buffing. Stupid mechanic, imo. Needlessly creates dependencies. Long term buffs should be permanent (meaning no long term buffs) and buffs more tactical in general. All removable by offensive abilites ofcourse.

See number 1.

Meaningful is entirely subjective. I don't find any meaning in fighting over a virtual castle. It is pointless. I'd much rather play for ladder rankings and tournaments.

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Don't waste your time. He either doesn't get it, or doesn't WANT to get it. I am highly doubting he's played MMO's pior to WoW despite he says he has. And I'm not saying that because it's the "popular" rebuttal...but IDK otherwise how you could say what he does without understanding MMORPG's from their birth up until now...or just being selfish and wanting what is conveinient for him no matter how it cripples the genre for others.

It would be like if FPS games were a niche genre, then suddenly had one major FPS release with tons of advertising bringing in droves of new players who have never heard of, or never played FPS games (Let's say they are from the MMORPG genre). Then as time went on these new players started griping how they think the FPS should be slowed down and allow for more player interaction outside of fighting...giving lobby rooms to chat. How certain guns should be nerfed because they are too powerful and take away the feeling of fair competition, how all players should start with a bunch of buffs and achievements should be harder to get, etc, etc.

Do you think these FPS die-hard's who had been playing them for years would stand for such a thing? Having their games changed by those who have little concept of how they began and what seperates them from the MMORPG genre? Think about that when making comments about whining. It's a protest of ignorance.

Sure, there are features from newer MMORPG's that can definitely improve the genre and should be added to them and are in many cases. But it's gotten out of control and MMORPG's today have lost their core features that make them a seperate genre from console gaming in the process. I don't see why there can't be comprimise.

Need to form a group? Huge inconvenience. Probably one of the biggest hinderances of the genre.

Buffing. Stupid mechanic, imo. Needlessly creates dependencies. Long term buffs should be permanent (meaning no long term buffs) and buffs more tactical in general. All removable by offensive abilites ofcourse.

See number 1.

Meaningful is entirely subjective. I don't find any meaning in fighting over a virtual castle. It is pointless. I'd much rather play for ladder rankings and tournaments.

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Don't waste your time. He either doesn't get it, or doesn't WANT to get it. I am highly doubting he's played MMO's pior to WoW despite he says he has. And I'm not saying that because it's the "popular" rebuttal...but IDK otherwise how you could say what he does without understanding MMORPG's from their birth up until now...or just being selfish and wanting what is conveinient for him no matter how it cripples the genre for others.

It would be like if FPS games were a niche genre, then suddenly had one major FPS release with tons of advertising bringing in droves of new players who have never heard of, or never played FPS games (Let's say they are from the MMORPG genre). Then as time went on these new players started griping how they think the FPS should be slowed down and allow for more player interaction outside of fighting...giving lobby rooms to chat. How certain guns should be nerfed because they are too powerful and take away the feeling of fair competition, how all players should start with a bunch of buffs and achievements shoudl be harder to get, etc, etc.

Do you think these FPS die-hard's who had been playing them for years would stand for such a thing? Having their games changed by those who have little concept of how they began and what seperates them from the MMORPG genre? Think about that when making comments abotu whining. It's a protest of ignorance.

Sure, there are features from newer MMORPG's that can definitely improve the genre and should be added to them and are in many cases. But it's gotten out of control and MMORPG's today have lost their core features that make them a seperate genre from console gaming in the process. I don't see why there can't be comprimise.

The reason games fail is because they have something wrong with them. The majority of mmos released have those features from the so called "golden age" of mmos, and a majority failed. Casual themeparks are the future, gw2 being a prime example and simply the beggining.

Need to form a group? Huge inconvenience. Probably one of the biggest hinderances of the genre.

Buffing. Stupid mechanic, imo. Needlessly creates dependencies. Long term buffs should be permanent (meaning no long term buffs) and buffs more tactical in general. All removable by offensive abilites ofcourse.

See number 1.

Meaningful is entirely subjective. I don't find any meaning in fighting over a virtual castle. It is pointless. I'd much rather play for ladder rankings and tournaments.

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Don't waste your time. He either doesn't get it, or doesn't WANT to get it. I am highly doubting he's played MMO's pior to WoW despite he says he has. And I'm not saying that because it's the "popular" rebuttal...but IDK otherwise how you could say what he does without understanding MMORPG's from their birth up until now...or just being selfish and wanting what is conveinient for him no matter how it cripples the genre for others.

It would be like if FPS games were a niche genre, then suddenly had one major FPS release with tons of advertising bringing in droves of new players who have never heard of, or never played FPS games (Let's say they are from the MMORPG genre). Then as time went on these new players started griping how they think the FPS should be slowed down and allow for more player interaction outside of fighting...giving lobby rooms to chat. How certain guns should be nerfed because they are too powerful and take away the feeling of fair competition, how all players should start with a bunch of buffs and achievements shoudl be harder to get, etc, etc.

Do you think these FPS die-hard's who had been playing them for years would stand for such a thing? Having their games changed by those who have little concept of how they began and what seperates them from the MMORPG genre? Think about that when making comments abotu whining. It's a protest of ignorance.

Sure, there are features from newer MMORPG's that can definitely improve the genre and should be added to them and are in many cases. But it's gotten out of control and MMORPG's today have lost their core features that make them a seperate genre from console gaming in the process. I don't see why there can't be comprimise.

The reason games fail is because they have something wrong with them. The majority of mmos released have those features from the so called "golden age" of mmos, and a majority failed. Casual themeparks are the future, gw2 being a prime example and simply the beggining.

Those features...which I didn't list, but that were the core of MMORPG's at one time (IMO through years of playing them prior to 2004) are COMMUNITY structure, chain quests that led you to multiple zones and took time to do with greater reward than what you get in most of them today (usually items you've already out leveled the use of making it vendor trash) ....because everything wasn't uber. Meaningful crafting, large open seamless worlds, depth, much more character customization, and LOTS of content that nearly never ended.

You are saying most MMORPG's today have these things? Maybe a few...but the larger majority of them do not.

Seeing as you can solo to cap in almost all of them (And in a month or less to boot) and have server-wide auction houses...there goes COMMUNITY, as well as the need for world travel. Crafting is an after thought in nealry all of them. Character customization is very limited...making for tons of clones. Even limited class selections and ways to effectively set up those classes (Coining the term cookie cutter classes). The worlds are far from open...they are funneled...either through tons fo invisible walls, or from one quest hub to the next in order of level.

I don't see how you say Themeparks are the future...because that's all they've been for a decade now....enough to keep attention for a few months tops. Sad state.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Originally posted by c0exist

Originally posted by Quirhid

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Don't waste your time. He either doesn't get it, or doesn't WANT to get it. I am highly doubting he's played MMO's pior to WoW despite he says he has. And I'm not saying that because it's the "popular" rebuttal...but IDK otherwise how you could say what he does without understanding MMORPG's from their birth up until now...or just being selfish and wanting what is conveinient for him no matter how it cripples the genre for others.

It would be like if FPS games were a niche genre, then suddenly had one major FPS release with tons of advertising bringing in droves of new players who have never heard of, or never played FPS games (Let's say they are from the MMORPG genre). Then as time went on these new players started griping how they think the FPS should be slowed down and allow for more player interaction outside of fighting...giving lobby rooms to chat. How certain guns should be nerfed because they are too powerful and take away the feeling of fair competition, how all players should start with a bunch of buffs and achievements should be harder to get, etc, etc.

Do you think these FPS die-hard's who had been playing them for years would stand for such a thing? Having their games changed by those who have little concept of how they began and what seperates them from the MMORPG genre? Think about that when making comments about whining. It's a protest of ignorance.

Sure, there are features from newer MMORPG's that can definitely improve the genre and should be added to them and are in many cases. But it's gotten out of control and MMORPG's today have lost their core features that make them a seperate genre from console gaming in the process. I don't see why there can't be comprimise.

Heh, only reason I can disagree with you is because there's something wrong with me it seems. When you yourself offer so little understanding or empathy it is very hard to give you any. I am not in the least bit of selfish. All I do is explain how things are and why they are that way. You're the one wondering why things don't go the way you want and you're the one who wants things to go the way you want. You are selfish.

When I said there's no virtue to having learning skills in Eve, the fans attacked me then. They said: "That would be like dumbing down Eve", but its not. There was no value in learning skills. Learning skills should be learned early on. Anything else is more or less gimping yourself for the long term. They created a weeks long period for new players where they saw no tangible advancement in the game, and it is easy to lose interest when this happens. Something bad for nothing good. It was good that CCP got rid of them. But some fans still wailed its dumbing down the game. Morons...

I get the same response every time I bring up an old mechanic. Just like the aforementioned long term buffs. What you create with them is dependencies and inconveniences. You have to weigh if the good is worth the bad and are there other methods of getting the good. Most fans are against removing them only because its what they're used to, and "it has worked so far, hasn't it?" - a very poor excuse to retain an arcaic mechanic.

As a hopefully soon-to-be-graduated usability and software engineer, I see no value doing something with three clicks, when you can do it with one, or better yet, automatically. Gameplay shouldn't be about artificially creating inconveniences and dependencies, it should be about enabling and allowing players to do stuff. You see where I'm going here? Sure, there are some elements which create gameplay for some and inconveniences for others, and I'm fairly certain the net sum benefits from long term buffs is negative, but I digress: This topic should be reserved for another thread if you like.

Can't you see that the best way to get the biggest possible audience is to allow players play the game like they want to? This includes being solo friendly. I get that you feel your playstyle is being threatened but try to look at this objectively for once. The usual hinderances to group play comes from poor quest and encounter design, where objectives are not shared, and despite being in a group, members have to complete the quest like they are playing solo. You see, its not because they allow you to solo, they just need to fix few things for groups.

Groups of players are naturally more powerful than solo players or even a group of solo players. They don't need an artificial buff. And the easier it is to form a group or play together, the more people do it. This is what GW2 tried to do. This is what WoW tried to do. Can't you see that? They're trying to solve problems which have plagued the genre for ages!

Same with instances. People love to do instances. Most don't want to fight for loot, or spawns, they only want to go in a dungeon and have an adventure. There are many advantages to instances, some related to performance, some to world and encounter design. You see them as an anti-christ and never admit any value in having them.

You should think more why things are done the way they are, and how they could be made better, instead of being a purist. I have said this a thousand times before: most people don't play MMOs because theyr'e MMOs, they play them because they're fun. Therefore the first objective for any developer should be "how to make this game fun" and not "how to make this game an MMO".

Its not your genre. You are not invested to anything and you are not entitled to anything. So stop acting like you are. If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to play. In any case, you are not doing your side any credit for bashing everyone and everything. Half the time you're only spreading hate without much point anyway. You are a buzzkill and you rarely offer anything valuable to the discussions in which you partake. So man up and try to act like the social, sensible and rational human being you claim to be.

It is childish to imply that someone is stupid only because he disagrees with you.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Feeling: This won't ever happen again in MMOs at least. My first MMO was Anarchy Online and the feeling I got playing, some kinda excited/sense of unknown, will just never happen again. I think databases like WoWhead have ruined a lot of it, but I see why they are there. But figuring out something that no one else has, at least that you know of, is amazing.

Think and calculate: Trying to fit on new weapons/armor was crazy in Anarchy Online and took a lot of other people and farming/buying some unique items you probably didn't have.

Leveling: It is too streamlined and these games are about the destination and not the journey. There was a soft-cap in vanilla Anarchy Online that most players never got past. And getting to max level, 200 at that time, was almost thought as impossible for awhile and I don't know how many years after release it took until someone finally hit that milestone. These days people are max level in a few days if they have no other obligations and have the drive/knowledge to do so.

Thanks for making me feel sad thinking back to the fun I had and that I no longer feel.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by redcappThe community. When MMOs catered and appealed to GAMERS, they were good. Now that gaming has gone mainstream, the marketing teams have drawn in crowds of idiots I would never associate with IRL.

Yep. It's all about having a playerbase with shared mentalities and purposes for playing. That is what makes a game a success, and requires a like-minded developer.

For many of the preceding arguments, a couple of notes:

1) MMOs became popular because the internet became popular. 1970-1993ish the internet was barely known. Most of the backbone was limited to campuses and government agencies. 1993-2000 saw a sharp increase in internet use but it wasn't quite the behemoth that it is today. 2000-2012 shifted the percentage of telecommunicated information via the internet from 51% to 97% (see Wikipedia article). WoW arrived on the scene at a ridiculously opportune time (2004), was backed by good programmers with solid game design ideas, and was developed by a company that carried a very large, very loyal following of RTS-minded gamers.

Note that the internet continues to become more popular. WoW does not. Something has changed.

2) What has changed is due to the OP and other campers, griefers, and people who can't separate their gaming life from their actual life (powergamers). MMORPG meant Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. When the underlined part ceased to mean anything anymore, the entire business of mmorpgs lost its identity. You could make the silliest child game akin to tic-tac-toe and promote it as an MMORPG now. The Golden age of MMOs? Meaningless drivel for people who caused the rampant confusion to make petty claims over.

Report this post

Originally posted by vandal5627MMOS with Depth...MMOs these days are really shallow, all glitz and glamour with no soul. Very forgettable.

I've struggled very, very hard to think what this mystical Golden Age MMO With Depth might have been, particularly given the early state of the art in '03.

But nope, it isn't more than a rose-colored myth.

Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by Goatgod76

Originally posted by c0exist

Originally posted by Quirhid

And this is exactly why those games died, gamers with this mentality. These thoughts although just fine because we all want different things in games are for single player games. For example Skyrim, no group needed, no dependencies because you can buff yourself, ranking through achievements. People with this point of view shouldnt play mmo's because they get everything they want through single player games. MMO's are about grouping and working together otherwise why even play with others? They are supposed to devote some time and effort. Not all your time but a good amount or whatever you can fit in.

Don't waste your time. He either doesn't get it, or doesn't WANT to get it. I am highly doubting he's played MMO's pior to WoW despite he says he has. And I'm not saying that because it's the "popular" rebuttal...but IDK otherwise how you could say what he does without understanding MMORPG's from their birth up until now...or just being selfish and wanting what is conveinient for him no matter how it cripples the genre for others.

It would be like if FPS games were a niche genre, then suddenly had one major FPS release with tons of advertising bringing in droves of new players who have never heard of, or never played FPS games (Let's say they are from the MMORPG genre). Then as time went on these new players started griping how they think the FPS should be slowed down and allow for more player interaction outside of fighting...giving lobby rooms to chat. How certain guns should be nerfed because they are too powerful and take away the feeling of fair competition, how all players should start with a bunch of buffs and achievements should be harder to get, etc, etc.

Do you think these FPS die-hard's who had been playing them for years would stand for such a thing? Having their games changed by those who have little concept of how they began and what seperates them from the MMORPG genre? Think about that when making comments about whining. It's a protest of ignorance.

Sure, there are features from newer MMORPG's that can definitely improve the genre and should be added to them and are in many cases. But it's gotten out of control and MMORPG's today have lost their core features that make them a seperate genre from console gaming in the process. I don't see why there can't be comprimise.

Heh, only reason I can disagree with you is because there's something wrong with me it seems. When you yourself offer so little understanding or empathy it is very hard to give you any. I am not in the least bit of selfish. All I do is explain how things are and why they are that way. You're the one wondering why things don't go the way you want and you're the one who wants things to go the way you want. You are selfish.

When I said there's no virtue to having learning skills in Eve, the fans attacked me then. They said: "That would be like dumbing down Eve", but its not. There was no value in learning skills. Learning skills should be learned early on. Anything else is more or less gimping yourself for the long term. They created a weeks long period for new players where they saw no tangible advancement in the game, and it is easy to lose interest when this happens. Something bad for nothing good. It was good that CCP got rid of them. But some fans still wailed its dumbing down the game. Morons...

I get the same response every time I bring up an old mechanic. Just like the aforementioned long term buffs. What you create with them is dependencies and inconveniences. You have to weigh if the good is worth the bad and are there other methods of getting the good. Most fans are against removing them only because its what they're used to, and "it has worked so far, hasn't it?" - a very poor excuse to retain an arcaic mechanic.

As a hopefully soon-to-be-graduated usability and software engineer, I see no value doing something with three clicks, when you can do it with one, or better yet, automatically. Gameplay shouldn't be about artificially creating inconveniences and dependencies, it should be about enabling and allowing players to do stuff. You see where I'm going here? Sure, there are some elements which create gameplay for some and inconveniences for others, and I'm fairly certain the net sum benefits from long term buffs is negative, but I digress: This topic should be reserved for another thread if you like.

Can't you see that the best way to get the biggest possible audience is to allow players play the game like they want to? This includes being solo friendly. I get that you feel your playstyle is being threatened but try to look at this objectively for once. The usual hinderances to group play comes from poor quest and encounter design, where objectives are not shared, and despite being in a group, members have to complete the quest like they are playing solo. You see, its not because they allow you to solo, they just need to fix few things for groups.

Groups of players are naturally more powerful than solo players or even a group of solo players. They don't need an artificial buff. And the easier it is to form a group or play together, the more people do it. This is what GW2 tried to do. This is what WoW tried to do. Can't you see that? They're trying to solve problems which have plagued the genre for ages!

Same with instances. People love to do instances. Most don't want to fight for loot, or spawns, they only want to go in a dungeon and have an adventure. There are many advantages to instances, some related to performance, some to world and encounter design. You see them as an anti-christ and never admit any value in having them.

You should think more why things are done the way they are, and how they could be made better, instead of being a purist. I have said this a thousand times before: most people don't play MMOs because theyr'e MMOs, they play them because they're fun. Therefore the first objective for any developer should be "how to make this game fun" and not "how to make this game an MMO".

Its not your genre. You are not invested to anything and you are not entitled to anything. So stop acting like you are. If you don't like it, leave. No one is forcing you to play. In any case, you are not doing your side any credit for bashing everyone and everything. Half the time you're only spreading hate without much point anyway. You are a buzzkill and you rarely offer anything valuable to the discussions in which you partake. So man up and try to act like the social, sensible and rational human being you claim to be.

It is childish to imply that someone is stupid only because he disagrees with you.

Nice try at twisting it back the other way. And reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit either.

I, as well as many others here I am certain, have seen where you don't simply tell it how it is and why it is. You tell why it can't be the way they WERE prior to players like youself trying to make them console games because that's what the majority want. It's players like you that are changing them from what they were meant to be into a genre that already exists with instant gratification play. Why is this so hard for you to absorb. it has very little to do with what makes the genre better, as much as it does with how much more cash can we squeeze out fo the consumer.

LOL...I'm selfish. Try actually reading my last post. Notice where I said why can't there be comprimise and that there are plenty of features from modern MMORPG's that are good and can be incorporated....as long as it doesn't kill all the core features that made MMORPG's what they were and made them a seperate genre and set apart.

I am willing to see many of the modern features of MMORPG's added to them. But also want to see what made them great, such as community involvement, open worlds to explore, meaning crafting and questing, and near endless content too. You seem to be the one that doesn't want anything that may require you use patience or brain power added. Just what YOU think is what they should be. Whatever can make them fun and fast...liek console games. Fun is fine...fast in some cases...is fine, but not to the degree it kills their purpose, mainly being interaction and long term fun (Why there is the RPG part in the title).

Love how you speak for others too...yet I have seen slews of posts with people who despise instancing, easy-mode, and half the BS you always preach about, etc. Actual posts stating so. Not even going to respond point for point anymore with you because as I told the last guy, I would just be wasting breath and time. Especially since I see your in school for it and probably learning the modern ways of bringing in people and cash despite how it may effect a certain genre as a whole, and think you know everything.

I am asking for comprimise, you are telling this is how it will be and if you don't like it leave. Who is being more selfish and childish?

Report this post

Nice try at twisting it back the other way. And reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit either.

I, as well as many others here I am certain, have seen where you don't simply tell it how it is and why it is. You tell why it can't be the way they WERE prior to players like youself trying to make them console games because that's what the majority want. It's players liek you that are changing them from what they were meant to be into a genre that laready exists with instant gratification play. Why is this so hard for you to absorb.

LOL...I'm selfish. Try actually reading my last post. Notice where I said why there can't be comprimise and that there ar eplenty of features from modern MMORPG's that are good and can be incorporated....as logn as it doesn't kill all the core features that made mMORPG's what they were and made them a seperate genre.

I am willing to see many of the modern features of MMORPG's added to them. But also want to see what made them great, such as community involvement, open worlds to explore, meaning crafting and questing, and near endless content too. You seem to be the one that doesn't want anything that may require you use patience or brain power added. Just what YOU think is what they should be.

Love how you speak for others too...yet I have seen slews of posts with people who despise instancing, easy-mode, etc. And talk about childish....telling me if I don't like it leave. Who is being selfish again?

I see where you're coming from: console games, easy-mode... There is no way to have an adult discussion with you, is there? Apparently you incapable of looking things from any perspective other than your own - a very skewed one I might add. And it seems you lack the will to think through the practical implications of the things you propose too. Much of what you demand is very difficult, very risky or outright impossible. Then you rant about how devs are lazy, inept or whatever when you don't get what you want. How about some f***ing respect for the professionals, eh? Armchair generals are a dime a dozen.

What makes you right and them wrong? What do you know that they don't?

If you think you know better why not step up to the plate? Are you willing to risk your livelyhood into making a game that has no indication it will succeed other than that scratch in your ass? How much funding do you think you can get based on that? Its one thing to design a game for yourself and a couple of your friends - a whole nother thing making it for the masses.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

For me personally?

Challenge/Progression: This really made it so fun to raid and get further in the game since it felt like when I did work, it actually was worth something. I could be in the guild that is very last in the world to do a raid and I'd still be content with it, just being able to say I completed it and then get to work on the next tier up. It really made those 'end game' focused MMos entertaining and a blast to play for a long time.

On the flip side, this also goes for games that focused on leveling as end game wasn't just 'obtained' it was something that could take a long long time to reach. The goal was to level and max out your character which really made it fun. Progression was individual based. Ragnarok Online was a game that did this extremely well as you leveled your character, you felt like you were getting better. You picked skills and stats and your choices felt like they made a different. From levels alone (granted gear counted for a lot as well) you could tell a difference and it really felt like you were achieving something.

Report this post

Explain why you are reporting this post:(750 characters max.)

Originally posted by Quirhid

What makes you right and them wrong? What do you know that they don't?

If you think you know better why not step up to the plate? Are you willing to risk your livelyhood into making a game that has no indication it will succeed other than that scratch in your ass? How much funding do you think you can get based on that? Its one thing to design a game for yourself and a couple of your friends - a whole nother thing making it for the masses.

Yet making it for the masses is the root of the problem. What game company tries to do that? What makes an MMO defy the long-standing practice of appealing to a particular audience?

What is disgusting about the flavor of both of your arguments is that:

1) You shouldn't be talking to each other on the same internet forum. You are not members of the same playerbase or even the same genre.

2) Both of you are parasitic members of a hijacked game genre. He hijacked my genre, you hijacked his. Neither of your genres have proven to be financially sound - in fact, its the opposite. BOTH of your genres have proven to be ludicrously unsound financially. Few multi-million dollar companies go out of business. A very large percentage of MMO enterprises do, go, completely, out-of-business. The few success stories and the realization of how profitable mmorpgs COULD be is what is fueling the exhorbitant risk-taking and money-lending.

His opinion is his, and a demographic of one is still a demographic. I would prefer a game that wouldn't be identifiable to either of you, and there are at least a few thousand people like me.

You lost the argument by failing to agree to disagree. We don't all like the same type of food, it's no wonder our online entertainment interests fall into separate categories. Your arrogance falls into categorizing complaints about MY genre as attacks on yours.

Report this post

Nice try at twisting it back the other way. And reading comprehension doesn't appear to be your strong suit either.

I, as well as many others here I am certain, have seen where you don't simply tell it how it is and why it is. You tell why it can't be the way they WERE prior to players like youself trying to make them console games because that's what the majority want. It's players liek you that are changing them from what they were meant to be into a genre that laready exists with instant gratification play. Why is this so hard for you to absorb.

LOL...I'm selfish. Try actually reading my last post. Notice where I said why there can't be comprimise and that there ar eplenty of features from modern MMORPG's that are good and can be incorporated....as logn as it doesn't kill all the core features that made mMORPG's what they were and made them a seperate genre.

I am willing to see many of the modern features of MMORPG's added to them. But also want to see what made them great, such as community involvement, open worlds to explore, meaning crafting and questing, and near endless content too. You seem to be the one that doesn't want anything that may require you use patience or brain power added. Just what YOU think is what they should be.

Love how you speak for others too...yet I have seen slews of posts with people who despise instancing, easy-mode, etc. And talk about childish....telling me if I don't like it leave. Who is being selfish again?

I see where you're coming from: console games, easy-mode... There is no way to have an adult discussion with you, is there? Apparently you incapable of looking things from any perspective other than your own - a very skewed one I might add. And it seems you lack the will to think through the practical implications of the things you propose too. Much of what you demand is very difficult, very risky or outright impossible. Then you rant about how devs are lazy, inept or whatever when you don't get what you want. How about some f***ing respect for the professionals, eh? Armchair generals are a dime a dozen.

What makes you right and them wrong? What do you know that they don't?

If you think you know better why not step up to the plate? Are you willing to risk your livelyhood into making a game that has no indication it will succeed other than that scratch in your ass? How much funding do you think you can get based on that? Its one thing to design a game for yourself and a couple of your friends - a whole nother thing making it for the masses.

Must of struck a nerve huh.

Well I have been gaming a LONG time. I've done more alpha and beta testing than I can count. I have FRIENDS in the industry, which in fact, I am asked for input from. I know enough to know your talking out of your ass.

And I don't recall anywhere I said dev's were lazy or inept. Money grubber's possibly (and rightly so, it's a business after all. But it's gotten out of hand), but the latter are your words you put in my mouth.

I don't know why it's so difficult for you to understand that console gaming, where instant gratification and quick fun you can load in and out of on a whim...is a COMPLETELY different genre from MMORPG's, which are different because they require commitment, LONG TERM commitment, patience, and a lot of community interaction. Worlds meant to be explored...basically 3D P&P D&D games.

It is fine to add features that compliment and enhance the experience. Yes, group finders are fine. Yes, limited portal use is fine. And yes...even some instancing is fine. But most of what people such as yourself want is to take away almost everything that makes a MMORPG a MMORPG, and turn them into single player games that happen to have other people as NPC's.

Soloing in an MMORPG is also fine. I do it quite a bit. But I also enjoy the group experience. The way I see it, from personal experience...a game with more group content fares better...as a MMORPG, for a longer period than one that calls itself an MMORPG....yet you can solo to level cap, barely talk to anyone, and port basically anywhere negating a point in a game world to begin with. Soloing content should still be in them, but not completely overpowering the game calling itself a MMORPG. This is what I am saying.

Yes, sadly...as much hate as it gets, but true...since WoW it's brought droves of console players to the genre, the cash they stick out there is what drives suits and excels the extinction of the genre as it was. Can you blame me, as a player who started with Meridian 59 and then EQ (Never played UO, not that into PvP) for being upset with this? And for getting heated seeing people like you who ALWAYS have something to say if anyone dares to talk about it, or wants just ONE MMORPG to cater to the old school crowd?

I have a friend working for an Indie company who is making an old school type of MMORPG. Guess I will continue to wait for it and pitch in where I can because the genre has gone to the dogs. But heed my words that a day will come when the way you enjoy them will shift, then it will be you on this end of the stick. Maybe then you will understand. But again...just keep insisting I am one sided and not willing for a compromise on old and new features and mechanics. Keep blasting anyone who says anything about older MMO's and the desire to have one come around again telling them how it will be a failure, even though there are DOZENS of them that cater to your type already so who cares if we get one...and keep calling me the selfish one while you do it.

We obviously won't see eye to eye, so I will leave it at that. Just please...do yourself, me and many others a favor. If you see a thread about old school MMORPG's or the desire to see another...just pass it by.

Report this post

Yet making it for the masses is the root of the problem. What game company tries to do that? What makes an MMO defy the long-standing practice of appealing to a particular audience?

What is disgusting about the flavor of both of your arguments is that:

1) You shouldn't be talking to each other on the same internet forum. You are not members of the same playerbase or even the same genre.

2) Both of you are parasitic members of a hijacked game genre. He hijacked my genre, you hijacked his. Neither of your genres have proven to be financially sound - in fact, its the opposite. BOTH of your genres have proven to be ludicrously unsound financially. Few multi-million dollar companies go out of business. A very large percentage of MMO enterprises do, go, completely, out-of-business. The few success stories and the realization of how profitable mmorpgs COULD be is what is fueling the exhorbitant risk-taking and money-lending.

His opinion is his, and a demographic of one is still a demographic. I would prefer a game that wouldn't be identifiable to either of you, and there are at least a few thousand people like me.

You lost the argument by failing to agree to disagree. We don't all like the same type of food, it's no wonder our online entertainment interests fall into separate categories. Your arrogance falls into categorizing complaints about MY genre as attacks on yours.

What are you talking about? Even SWTOR made profit and it was hailed as a failure. Yes, bad games go out of business, and should go out of business, but there's too many people saying "this and that failed" only because they didn't like it. Many companies have failed largely because of poor management - not because of game design.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky